(HC) Hatchett v. Clark

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 27, 20202:20-cv-02044California569 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, No. 2:20-cv-02044 GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER KEN CLARK, Warden, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to either submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or submit the appropriate filing fee. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition: “shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and of which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.